/sci/ - Science & Math

Not yet

╭∩╮（︶︿︶）╭∩╮

>>3710249
Hey man you better relax.

It would awesome

like whoa.

More intelligent species within our galaxy, at least. Probably with the same problems understanding the universe.

Shit. I came

Not really.

no
there is a fuckload of "questionable" evidence though

Nope. But its very likely.

>>3710248

Good answer.

>>3710254
(╮°-°)╮︵┳━┳

>>3710254
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

We have no evidence, but we can speculate.

Based upon our own planet and life as we know it, we can assume its POSSIBLE that life can exist on similar planets, hence the search for such planets.

Then we have the obvious idea of how large the universe is, leading to speculation that its quite plausable that such another planet exists AND with life.

Then we have the other thing, that our planet is only 4 billion years old while the universe is roughly 16, life as we know it could have occured 4 times over.

Then we have the idea that life adapts to extreme environments, while water based life must assume some sort of temperature equivilent within 0-70 degrees celcius, we assume its possible that life can exist in other plains of life (perhaps even nebulas), but this is the most skeptical part.

Finally, we need to remember that orbit, size of planets and distance from the sun is somewhat unimportant when it comes to "life as we know it" sustainable levels for living. Atmospheres with massive greenhouse absorption could be significantly more distant from stars/suns and still have a stable temperature, and vice versa to planets close to a sun/star.

This is all speculation as I have stated earlier. But given the size, time, adaptability and overall capacity that the universe provides. I'd say its Plasuable to assume life exists outside of our own planet.

>>3710293

There is only really three options:

-Earth is the first world to form life, others will eventually

-There are other worlds with life on them

-Earth is the last world with life

guess which one is the most plausible

>>3710293 Then we have the other thing, that our planet is only 4 billion years old while the universe is roughly 16, life as we know it could have occured 4 times over.

Kindly remember that life has been developing on this planet before now. It didn't take four billion years to develop. Once life started to develop, it went much faster than that. To expound, there's only ~65 million years between us and the last dominant life forms here. Life doesn't have a particular time road map.

There is statistical evidence. How probable is it that life in the universe would appear exactly ONE time (on Earth)? Its far more probable that it willeither never appear (which we know isnot the case), or if life possible, it will appear multiple times.

tldr Drake Equation

>>3710302

I'm quite aware of that, I'd also argue that sentient life could have occured several times over and potentially billions of years ago, depending upon random chance and adaptable advantage of evolution. But because if I claimed that life could develope signficiantly earlier, there would be resistance to this idea (prove it!), I chose to just go with our model, as that's the only defenceable position to take.

test

>>3710299

You forgot:

"We're all in a matrix/simulation"

>>3710306

>Drake Equation
>Remotely scientific

Fuck off.

>>3710322


Calm down my friend. I personally don't agree with the Drake equation as it lacks life's adaptability, planet scale/orbit/atmosphere differentiation, it also lacks the understanding that evolution changes as per environment and as one other poster well said "is not a ladder".

But dimple profanic dismissal solves nothing.

>>3710322


Calm down my friend. I personally don't agree with the Drake equation as it lacks life's adaptability, planet scale/orbit/atmosphere differentiation, it also lacks the understanding that evolution changes as per environment and as one other poster well said "is not a ladder".

But simple profanic dismissal solves nothing.

>>3710313

I already assume simulation in all examples, only explanation for life that makes sense even religiously.

Mexicans with out visas.
/thread.

didnt they find them micro bactria shit on mars rocks?

>>3710322
Drakes equation isn't science, it's mathematics. And it's correct mathematics.
What is your point?

theres mathematical probability........

google drake equation

>>3710471
>>3710478

Drake's Equation is not "correct". It is extremely arbitrary with completely unguessable variables.

ESPECIALLY the final one, <span class="math">fc[/spoiler].

>>3710484
>Implying anyone filled in the variables.
It's simply expansion of probabilistic variables.
P(A and B) = P(A) * P(B | A), but for a shitload of variables.
It can't be incorrect, it's the conclusion of the statement "If there is a planet around the star, and it's in a particular zone, and there are the right circumstances for self replicating building blocks, and there is no bad disaster for a long time, and life becomes intelligent, and they develop a means of communicating, then there might be radio signals".

>>3710516

Yes, but your answer can come infinitely close to 0.
Meaning even with the Drake Equation, it is entirely possible that at this time, Earth is the single planet with life in the universe.

I don't even agree with that, but the Drake Equation is not even a good standby to make a guess with.

>>3710540
What it does is allow people to make a slightly better guess.
Probabilistic intuition tends to fail. We might be able to estimate the probability of a single event, but when it gets more complicated, our intuition fails.
If I ask people the probability of throwing 3 sixes with 3 dice, they might not know, and not be able to estimate it even nearly correctly. If I ask them the probability for one die, they will almost certainly be able to estimate better (or even know the answer).

There's drakes equation, but that makes some major assumptions. If you take into account the probability of molecules reacting to make the protein strands necessary for life, it is surprising that it even occurred once in the entire universe.

>>3710553
I might add that drakes equation isn't really 'evidence' to begin with, just a very optimistic guess.

>>3710553
>>3710555
>mfw people don't even understand what Drakes equation is.
It's not evidence, it doesn't provide values for the variables, it's just a formulation of the probability of intelligent life existing.

Given the huge amount of eyewitness and abductee reports, it becomes reasonable to view the problem in a different way: whatever the phenomena is, it's not the kind of thing that leaves material evidence behind. Therefore the transitory personal accounts are all that can be considered as evidence. Most people on /sci/ will find this insufficient, but there are plenty of social sciences doing work with the same kind of stuff.

Starchild skull
/thread

http://www.starchildproject.com/
DNA proved that its differs from human DNA more than chimps

>>3710306
Drake's equatione is a fucking jest, a baby could have written it

>>3710562
It is also evidence for a collective defect in the brain, that makes people suspectible for mass-hysteria. Which I think, using ockhams razor is the more likely explanation.

>>3710571
So, what is the problem with it?

>>3710572
I agree, at least to some extent. But I'm not trying to advance an opinion about what the basis of the phenomenon is, just to note that the characteristics of what claims of evidence we have available to us about aliens points to a phenomenon less material and more energetic or mental.

>>3710566

DNA evidence proved it was human. What the fuck are you on about?

>>3710593
No, they only found he has all chromosomes that human has, they were not inspecting differences in DNA

>>3710562
>>3710580
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

Watch this. Eye-witness reports will never be classed as scientific evidence.

>>3710614
If all it says is
>Eye-witness reports will never be classed as scientific evidence.
then I don't need to watch it. Eyewitness reports are not optimal, sure, but that is the larger part of what we have to work with. Tyson can bitch about it all he wants, reality is under no obligation to provide him with easy answers.

Yes, illegals jumping borders exist.
But seriously, tardigrades have been known to survive in the hard deathly vacuum of space.

Pic related!

>>3710622
Well you can't really comment on Tyson 'bitching' if you didn't watch the video. Don't be an ignorant faggot, you may actually learn something.

>>3710650
The way you summarized the video does not make it sound like it's worth ten minutes of time to watch it.

>>3710622
When eyewitnesses are the only evidence you can find in addition to shaky bs camera footage, you should take the story with a pinch of salt.

>>3710694
I don't disagree, but the more important point is that when investigation a phenomenon, you have to go along the lines of what it presents as, not what it would be easiest or most ideal to be studying.

>>3710650
It's just a good video on rational thought and how humans are flawed.